Sir – I would like to answer a couple points made by Bob Churchill in his letter ‘Same-sex marriage? There is no problem’ (Worcester News, January 21).

He said that, “When we imagine two people in love, our first thought is not usually that it is ‘destructive’ to society”. He is correct, it is not our first thought. The danger only becomes apparent on closer inspection. I was not talking about love between any two individuals, but about the longer term implications of redefining marriage.

There are other enormous issues, such as whether there is any real need for the proposed changes, or, if the homosexual lifestyle is inherently less healthy than the heterosexual, then is it wise for the Government to actually be promoting it? But the core problem with the Government legalising same-sex marriage is that it is making a very powerful and influential statement. Marriage is a child-rearing institution, a place where having children and creating families is actually encouraged, and not merely tolerated. It would be saying that our children no longer need mothers and fathers, and that two mothers or two fathers are not only just as good as a mother and a father, they are just the same. It would be saying that natural marriage is no better than any other relationship and that marriage is not a prerequisite for children. As that message is absorbed and accepted in our society, then, as in other countries who have accepted same-sex marriage, we will see the number of natural marriages reducing and the number of children being brought up outside of marriage increasing. The problem is that such children are statistically more likely to be less qualified, sick both physically and mentally, involved in crime, jobless, poor, and have subsequent relationship difficulties, especially when compared against those brought up in natural marriages. All of which represents an enormous increase in human misery and negative impact on our nation.

Ewan Gear

Worcester